NEW SCIENCE - redefining science from the roots

[Raheman Velji]

Hi. I\'ve written a paper which claims that many things that are taken for granted to be true are not true. Thus, to many, this paper is aptly and completely off topic. To me, however, I consider it to be on topic; it questions the fundamental nature of physics and science as a whole.

You can either access the attached paper or view it at http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion2/rahemanvelji/

[keebler_giant]

You seem crazy to me. Not to put you down or anything, but you have a few statements in there that have to no proof, and you also have a few logical flaws as well. How do you have an infinitesimal number of electrons? You can either have an electron, or you can\'t.

[PritamDamania]

Just as keebler_giant said many of your statements contain flaws. The theorem on consevration of energy is valid for all situations involving classical mechanics. I say this because i have not read much about advanced level physics. But all the situations i come across energy is conserved. Regarding the example of the bird above the earth, the earth gets the KE due to loss in gravitational PE. BTW the conservation of energy has been used in many practical aspects of physics and no flaw has been found. The spaceships sent into outer space have been a sucess due to calculations of gravitatioanl PE and if you know what gravitational slingshots are they are also acheived by calculations involving conservation of angular momentum and energy.

[lysdexia]

I haven\'t read the file (busy with my own writings), but maybe he uses infinitesimal electrons because the wave is divisible? (http://www.aip.org/pnu/2000/split/pnu501-1.htm) And no, Pritam, no spaceships have been sent to outer space (beyond Mars): Those were space probes, and a bunch of them pathetically violated energy and momentum conservation. (http://www.aip.org/pnu/1999/split/pnu447-2.htm)

:fresh:

[Fernanda]

why don\'t they ever try to redifine quackery? why always attack science? sheesh!:wall:

[nmondal]

Originally posted by Raheman Velji
it questions the fundamental nature of physics and science as a whole.


Any theory is based upon axioms. Now, a theory is right until the axioms *experimentally* proves to be right. There is [as far as I know] no way to prove a thing theoritically right. [Axioms, and more axioms.]

So, we based our early physics on experimentation, and then classical mathematics....then based all against the oddity of probability....and now it is touching the realm of philosophy.

So, it ceases to be practical. On the failure of conservation of energy, may I question people, what is Energy? Anybody who knows a meaningful answer, is welcome to explain it to me.

As far as I understand, it is an abstract *thing* that remains alomst conserved. It\'s conservation is limited by Heisenberg, as for very small amount if time del{E} can have any value, and is the reason for *tunelling*.

So, common-sense + age-long-dependency on older thoughts, shapes our ideas about the Reality.

Do not think I am supporting Raheman, or Raheman do not thing that I am criticising u. I am trying to tell the truth.

There can be alternative meaning to anything.
We give them meaning in a certain way. Other may use their ideas.

One quacky idea may be is that as Feynman posed \"There is only 1 electron in the universe. Whenever we try to mesure the number of electrons it somhow manages to become many!\"

[I forgot the exact quote, though...]

It is really tough to distinguish Great Philosophy, Great thought from Quacky ideas.
Believe me, it is hard.

:)

\"Mary had a little lamb\".
How many ways you can interprete the event?
[Mary ate some lamb meat or had one as pet?]

Given the series : {1,2,3,...} what is the next number?

[4] or [5], or even 100,, how one can know?

These are dependent upon axioms...and certainly they are really reallly crude model of Reality....